Obama: It’ll be “messy,” but “I am absolutely confident” we can reach a grand deficit deal

posted at 4:01 pm on October 24, 2012 by Erika Johnsen

Ed already recapped the dustup between Team/President Obama and the editors of the Des Moines Register, among the more influential publications in the battleground state of Iowa (which the president also happens to be barnstorming during his campaign travels today), that finally resulted in campaign officials releasing a transcript of the phone interview to the publication. Why an interview meant to potentially bolster an endorsement from the DMR needed to be secretive in the first place remains a mystery, and I’m not sure what the big deal was since — according to the transcript — the chat seemed like just more of the usual bunk and a jumping-off platform for Obama’s lame-by-consensus last-moment second-term agenda.

Q: Great. Mr. President, we know that John Boehner and the House Republicans have not been easy to work with, and certainly you’ve had some obstacles in the Senate, even though it’s been controlled by the Democrats. At the time, whenever — we talked a lot about, in 2008, hope and change. I’m curious about what you see your role is in terms of changing the tone and the perception that Washington is broken. But particularly, sir, if you were granted a second term, how do you implode this partisan gridlock that has gripped Washington and Congress and basically our entire political structure right now?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, Rick, let me answer you short term and long term. In the short term, the good news is that there’s going to be a forcing mechanism to deal with what is the central ideological argument in Washington right now, and that is: How much government do we have and how do we pay for it?

So when you combine the Bush tax cuts expiring, the sequester in place, the commitment of both myself and my opponent — at least Governor Romney claims that he wants to reduce the deficit — but we’re going to be in a position where I believe in the first six months we are going to solve that big piece of business.

It will probably be messy. It won’t be pleasant. But I am absolutely confident that we can get what is the equivalent of the grand bargain that essentially I’ve been offering to the Republicans for a very long time, which is $2.50 worth of cuts for every dollar in spending, and work to reduce the costs of our health care programs.

If President Obama is reelected and the status of our executive and legislative branches stays unchanged, I’m not sure how or why O’s hitherto unbeknownst leadership skills will magically mean that everything’s okay, but yes, let’s please do talk about how we’re going to pay for all of this. Because, if hiking taxes on the upper echelons of earners is what’s supposed to make this all possible, er… via the WSJ:

Perhaps you’ve heard that the President wants to raise taxes on the top 2% of U.S. taxpayers. If you haven’t, well, the pamphlet mentions that once or twice. Left unsaid is that this plan increases revenue only between $50 billion and $80 billion a year, a rounding error in the $1 trillion-plus deficit era. Mr. Obama does claim to have a plan to reduce the gap by $4 trillion over the next decade. Mostly this comes from unwinding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that are already being unwound and assorted budget gimmicks.

But what about a grand budget bargain? Won’t that be Mr. Obama’s crowning second-term achievement? The pamphlet’s sections on health care and entitlements show that his real budget priority is to preserve all of the government he expanded in the first term.

Also of note in the DMR interview, from the president:

The second thing I’m confident we’ll get done next year is immigration reform. And since this is off the record, I will just be very blunt. Should I win a second term, a big reason I will win a second term is because the Republican nominee and the Republican Party have so alienated the fastest-growing demographic group in the country, the Latino community. And this is a relatively new phenomenon. George Bush and Karl Rove were smart enough to understand the changing nature of America. And so I am fairly confident that they’re going to have a deep interest in getting that done. And I want to get it done because it’s the right thing to do and I’ve cared about this ever since I ran back in 2008.

Well, that’s not much of a secret, either — John McCain did do better with Latinos generally, New Mexico, etcetera in 2008, but I think Obama is winning by default on this one rather than being a grand champion. He somehow never managed to make an issue out of immigration reform during the foreign policy debate, and in an interview with Univision earlier this fall, he told the audience that his “biggest failure” was not passing immigration reform earlier in his presidency… when he was unimpeded by a split Congress.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, Rick, let me answer you short term and long term. In the short term, the good news is that there’s going to be a forcing mechanism to deal with what is the central ideological argument in Washington right now, and that is: How much government do we have and how do we pay for it?

There’s Freudian slip in there. Did you catch it?

Here it is: How much government do we have and how do we pay for it?

Deep down, Obama cannot see anything about government except its continued existence and growth. The only issue is how to pay for it.

Nowhere in this statement can you read in any hint of cutting the size and financial needs of government.

Ideologically, a conservative (or trustee of public money) would have said “How much government do we need and how do we pay for it”.

But I am absolutely confident that we can get what is the equivalent of the grand bargain that essentially I’ve been offering to the Republicans for a very long time, which is $2.50 worth of cuts for every dollar in spending, and work to reduce the costs of our health care programs.

Like Obamacare, “it won’t be pleasant.”
A bitter pill for all. Even Howard Dean called the Baucus Bill the “worst piece of legislation to come out of Washington in a decade.” At one point, as most Democrats and Repubs were raging in agreement against the Baucus Bill, a Dem said “it must be good because everyone hates it.” That makes sense… not! But the Baucus Bill became Obamacare. True, and truly sad. Now Obama’s got some messy unpleasant affair in store for us again. Finally he tells the truth.

anotherJoe: It depends on the reasons people hate something. If everyone hates something for the same reason,then yes, it’s bad.

OTOH, if some people don’t like you because you’re too tall, and others don’t like you because you’re too short, it’s possible that you are the ‘average’ or ‘consensus’ height, and that may be what the politician meant.

Who believes this? Who, in their right mind, believes a guy at first too afraid to speak on the record with a freakin’ newspaper that endorsed him in ’08 is ready to make a grand bargain with a party he’s been attacking for years?

Notice, too, that’s he’s promising tax raises AND the defense cuts he’s previously said wouldn’t happen. They remain part of any bargain he puts forth, and he’s lying to the American people when he suggests otherwise.

But I am absolutely confident that we can get what is the equivalent of the grand bargain that essentially I’ve been offering to the Republicans for a very long time, which is $2.50 worth of cuts for every dollar in spending, and work to reduce the costs of our health care programs.
$2.50 in cuts for every $1 in spending?

What gobbledegook. That doesn’t even make sense.

Bitter Clinger on October 24, 2012 at 4:13 PM

It means that the Democrats will enact immediately a tax increase meant to confiscate another trillion dollars from earners and then propose future spending cuts, that will never happen, of 2.5 trillion. Kinda like the lie to Reagan from Tip O’Neil.

In 1982, Reagan agreed to increase some excise taxes on a promise from House Speaker Tip O’Neill that every dollar increase in tax revenue would be matched by 3 dollars in spending cuts. Famously, O’Neill reneged. So much for compromise: When later asked again to raise some taxes, Reagan would reply, “I’m still waiting for those spending cuts.”

Since when is 5% a rounding error? 50 billion is 5% of 1 trillion. Maybe if this were an opinion poll, then 5% could be within limits, but to treat this like being a handful of pennies to the deficit, it’s not even a handful of pennies to $10.

Right . . . just like he was going to pacify the Muslim world by playing nice with them and all the other promises he’s failed to fill during the last four years. If the voters are naive or stupid enough to believe this charlatan and again elect him, then let them follow him into the depths.

Did he follow that up by saying, “If we reach the levels of taxation France imposes on the rich, cut all loopholes for the wealthy, cut defense spending by 2 trillion dollars, and take Madicare, Madicaid, Social Security, and obviously most domestic spending (because its for the children) off the table?”

Because that seems to be the only deal he would be willing to do with no threat of losing an election.

Q: Great. Mr. President, we know that John Boehner and the House Republicans have not been easy to work with, and certainly you’ve had some obstacles in the Senate, even though it’s been controlled by the Democrats. At the time, whenever — we talked a lot about, in 2008, hope and change. I’m curious about what you see your role is in terms of changing the tone and the perception that Washington is broken.

Anyone who has watched the demeanor of Biden and Obama during these debates knows exactly where the problem in reaching any kind of deal lies.

…which is $2.50 worth of cuts for every dollar in spending, and work to reduce the costs of our health care programs.

$2.50 in cuts for every $1 in spending?

What gobbledegook. That doesn’t even make sense.

Of course it doesn’t. I think he means, or at least meant to say, $2.50 in cuts for every $1.00 in revenue. But, it’s irrelevant because he doesn’t even mean that.

I’m not sure he ever means a word he says. Except when he says he believes his own B.S. That I’ll buy.

And, I include the second part of that sentence (above) for a good laugh. He’s now determined to work to reduce the healthcare cost increases his signature plan is causing and will continue to cause in the future?

I seriously believe the man suffers from some form of psychosis. If there’s a shrink out there, please chime in. Narcissism doesn’t begin to cover it (though it’s a start).

Wino: Oh, I’m _sure_ Obama has the leadership potential to make a deficit deal that reduces it by a grand.

Scott H on October 24, 2012 at 4:11 PM

No chance of that as long as the Tea Party is around. Dick Lugar, Olympia Snowe, and other moderate members of the GOP have already expressed that frustration about the unprecedented difficulty of forging agreements across the aisle when the Tea Party is part of the equation.
The Tea Party only believes in no-compromise democracy, the form of democracy found in Russia and Iran. Only when it has achieved full electoral victory (based on support of around 20% of voters), will it allow our democracy to function as the founder’s intended.

The Tea Party only believes in no-compromise democracy, the form of democracy found in Russia and Iran. Only when it has achieved full electoral victory (based on support of around 20% of voters), will it allow our democracy to function as the founder’s intended.

bayam on October 24, 2012 at 4:54 PM

If someone wants to burn down your house and kill your family, how much compromise would you be willing to offer to that person ?
1. Burn my house but leave my family
2. Leave my house but kill my family
3. Burn my house, kill my wife but leave my kids
5. Burn my house, kill my family but leave me
6. …… ???

Barry couldn’t make a deal to save his soul. As for “immigration reform”, the only time Barry is interested in that is during elections. Be interesting to see if Hispanics can be that stupid a second time.

The Tea Party only believes in no-compromise democracy, the form of democracy found in Russia and Iran. Only when it has achieved full electoral victory (based on support of around 20% of voters), will it allow our democracy to function as the founder’s intended.

bayam on October 24, 2012 at 4:54 PM

Einstein, is you ever going to explain how our record deficits occurred as asked of you last night?

So when you combine the Bush tax cuts expiring, the sequester in place, the commitment of both myself and my opponent — at least Governor Romney claims that he wants to reduce the deficit — but we’re going to be in a position where I believe in the first six months we are going to solve that big piece of business.

Didn’t Obama say during the last debate that the “sequester won’t happen” because it was only a “proposal from Congress”? If he does put the sequester in place, there will only be enough money for horses and bayonets.

Obama hasn’t gotten a budget through Harry Reid’s Senate for the last three years, even though his party holds a majority. If Dirty Harry won’t work with Obama now, what will convince him to with him later? And if Obama can’t work with Harry Reid, how can he work with John Boehner?

Obama hasn’t gotten a budget through Harry Reid’s Senate for the last three years, even though his party holds a majority. If Dirty Harry won’t work with Obama now, what will convince him to with him later? And if Obama can’t work with Harry Reid, how can he work with John Boehner?

Steve Z on October 24, 2012 at 5:53 PM

After Dingy’s erratic behavior this last couple of years, can he even be reelected leader again?

Einstein, is you ever going to explain how our record deficits occurred
arnold ziffel on October 24, 2012 at 5:26 PM

Try reading the financial press- it’s called a $1 trillion structural deficit inherited from the previous administration. Not even Romney has called for drastically cutting government spending to address the deficit in the aftermath of a massive financial crisis.

The Tea Party only believes in no-compromise democracy, the form of democracy found in Russia and Iran. Only when it has achieved full electoral victory (based on support of around 20% of voters), will it allow our democracy to function as the founder’s intended.

bayam on October 24, 2012 at 4:54 P

Show me the math that achieves “full electoral victory” (whatever that is..I’m assuming this 270 electoral votes, but that doesn’t get a majority of either House in the Congress)

What you’re trying to suggest is that people like me won’t be happy until we dominate both Houses of Congress, own the White House, and stack the deck at Supreme Court. And you are correct.

Unfortunately for you, the only way to do that is with the consent of the people, who would be the ones who provide the majorities in the Senate and the House and put a conservative in the WH. With that kind of mandate (or public opinion, your choice), the makeup of SCOTUS should necessarily reflect the..uh…how did Sotomayor say it…the temperament of the country?

Your greatest fear is that vast numbers of people will throw off the pipe dreams of socialist promises and get back to the basics of made the US what it is. Crushing debt tends to sober up people quite quickly. And that’s where we are.

Not even Romney has called for drastically cutting government spending to address the deficit in the aftermath of a massive financial crisis.

bayam on October 24, 2012 at 6:03 PM

Can we start with cutting off the ObamaPhones? The EBT card that able bodied males and females use every day to purchase food at Mac Donald’s and Taco Bell? Can we stop them from using my hard earned money to purchase lobster and steak?

It will probably be messy. It won’t be pleasant. But I am absolutely confident that we can get what is the equivalent of the grand bargain that essentially I’ve been offering to the Republicans for a very long time, which is $2.50 worth of cuts for every dollar in spending, and work to reduce the costs of our health care programs.

How would he know. He’s the suit that’s never there. Standing joke around DC I hear that he’s completely disengaged. So suddenly he’s gonna decide to lead? LOL!

“The second thing I’m confident we’ll get done next year is immigration reform.”

That’s a good enough reason on its own to oppose Obama.

Obama has an anti-White attitude. When he urged Hispanics to punish their enemies, those enemies were implicitly White.

Anti-White hostility and Democratic partisanship go hand in hand, as the Republican Party gets 90% of its votes from Whites, and theories about how Blacks or Hispanics are natural conservatives never work out. That’s the base the Republican Party has; if it goes down the party goes down, and anti-Whites like Obama would love to bring down both the White demographic and the relatively conservative party that still provides it with a political voice.

Mass non-White immigration, which is what “immigration reform” is about, is an attempt to stack the electoral deck, and create a permanent majority that would be not just non-White but preferably anti-White. That’s not going to be the last time a Democrat calls on Hispanics to “punish their enemies,” and the greater the share of the electorate that’s Hispanic, the greater the share that is potentially receptive to such calls.

Mass immigration plus forced integration and assimilation is already making California more expensive, less pleasant, and practically un-winnable for conservatives. Even Ronald Reagan couldn’t win there now. There aren’t enough people potentially receptive to a conservative message.

Doing the same thing on a national scale means making the whole nation hopeless.

Common sense and partisan logic should tell Republicans that they have to go all-out to prevent that.

“But I am absolutely confident that we can get what is the equivalent of the grand bargain that essentially I’ve been offering to the Republicans for a very long time…”

Obama’s theory of compromise never changes. With the left, within the party, compromise is possible; against the right, outside the party, compromise will ensue when the enemy capitulates. It’s just a matter of breaking the enemy’s will.

His confidence is that conservatives can’t hold out as long as he is willing to keep demanding everything his own way.

Four more years of Obama means four more years of him testing that theory.

My gut feeling is Obama has never once made sausage. He doesn’t know what it takes, has never really cared what it takes. He believes that, if he wins this election, he’s going to have power over the Republicans. Well, what if the Republicans win in a landslide and he has the same Congress he had in 2009, but in reverse? He can’t deal with that, he has no clue how to compromise, he has no clue how to create legislation. The crew he has in the White House now, only knows how to aggravate, not legislate or compromise so where does he believe he can get something done, except capitulate?

Nice of him to scratch together this agenda for his next term, better late than never. So, we’re to believe the Latinos don’t mind voting for someone who has lied to them about immigration reform for 4 years and gave guns to bad folks in Mexico that were used to kill a lot of their fellow countrymen, women and children all the while spending them into deeper and deeper debt. Right, got it.

Exactly two years ago you said, Republicans could go along for the ride, but,”they gotta sit in the back”.Bullsh!t.
I won’t take a back seat to the most destructive A—HOLE on earth, this country has ever seen.
You do not deserve a seat at any table in these United States of America.

Try reading the financial press- it’s called a $1 trillion structural deficit inherited from the previous administration. Not even Romney has called for drastically cutting government spending to address the deficit in the aftermath of a massive financial crisis.

bayam on October 24, 2012 at 6:03 PM

The date of Democratic “inheritance” from Republicans was NOT January 20, 2009.

It was January 3, 2007, when Democrats took majority control of Washington, D.C. Nancy Pelosi took control of the House, and Harry Reid, along with then-Senators Obama, Biden, and Clinton took control of the Senate.

What did Speaker Pelosi and Senators Reid, Obama, Biden, Clinton, and others inherit from the Republicans in January 2007?